Home » Eric Felten “debunks,” “discredits,” and reveals as “baseless,” the Democrats’ impeachment case

Comments

Eric Felten “debunks,” “discredits,” and reveals as “baseless,” the Democrats’ impeachment case — 20 Comments

  1. This really is a good piece. They hope to convict based on repeating the same lies over and over.

  2. I swore off watching the proceedings because it is so maddening to watch Schiff and company make accusations and assert evidence based on what I know to be hearsay and conjecture. To watch them use snippets of documents, video testimony, and other statements out of context and presenting them as solid facts is disgusting. To see them dismiss out of hand the concept of executive privilege and the accused’s rights to due process makes my blood boil. To see them demand that the President should prove his innocence by allowing them to go on a fishing expedition through all the documents of the White House, DOJ, and State Department is disturbing. Watching them claim they have overwhelming evidence, but then demand that they need new witnesses and documents to prove their case – WTF?

    I can only imagine that this is what it would be like in to be tried in the USSR. Rules against hearsay as evidence, the right to due process, and the right to a presumption of innocence have been swept aside in order to convince viewers that an impeachable offense has been committed.

    I believe that Schiff is the sort of personality that would emerge as a Beria type in a Communist tyranny. The man lies with no sort of reservations at all. He apparently has no conscience or shame. Last night on Laura Ingraham’s show, Devin Nunes said, after people remarked about how brazenly Schiff lies, that now people could see what the members of the House Intelligence Committee have had to put up with since Trump was elected.

    What also dismays me is the coverage on local TV and my local newspaper. Few facts can be found and they give undue credence to the Schiff, Schumer show.

  3. Dems at 130…blah blah blah
    Dems at 230 ..blah blah blah
    Dems at 600…blah blah blah.

    All day long: blag blah blah. Only the most fanatical TDS Dem could watch this stuff all day.

  4. An impeachment trial under the U.S. Constitution has substantial procedural differences from a court trial, but the objective is the same — to achieve a just result. In an impeachment trial, senators are the jurors. Senate rules require that they take a solemn oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.”

    It is essential that the upcoming impeachment trial be handled in a fair and impartial manner, allowing both sides to present live testimony and to introduce pertinent documentary evidence. If the case is dismissed in a summary fashion, as some have advocated, or if witnesses who have pertinent information are excluded, those senators responsible will have violated their juror oath and defiled the constitutional process.

    How can you have a fair jury trial without witnesses?

  5. In 1987, Larry Tribe suggested the impeachment of President Ronald Reagan for his alleged role in the Iran-Contra matter: Therein lies what appears to be the most serious breach of duty by the president – a breach that may well entail an impeachable abuse of power …”

    Alan Dershowitz, @AlanDersh

  6. There have been a number of witnesses FB, and surprise!: where their testimony is direct as opposed to speculative hearsay they have uniformly provided reinforcement of the Pres.’ own claims. Odd, right?

  7. were there witnesses in Bill clinton’s impeachment trial? chuck schumer must be upset then if not.

  8. FB: “How can you have a fair jury trial without witnesses?”

    When there are few witnesses (and in this case there are only two) who had direct knowledge of the issues at hand, it would make sense to bring them in. Why didn’t the House managers ask to bring them before the Senate? The reason: Both were favorable to POTUS’s case. Should they have tried to bring in the witnesses they hope will help their case?They could have done that during the investigation. They chose not to because it would have delayed their impeachment plan. Subpoenas and executive privilege were issues they didn’t want to deal with. Too time consuming and all that. Besides, they claim they have an overwhelming case with what they found during the investigation. Surely that’s true? It must be because all but two of the House Democrats voted for it. Oh, and zero Republicans voted for it. Even more reason to believe it’s an overwhelming case, right?

    They are using snippets of video testimony taped during the investigation that are taken out of context and misleading, but it is witness testimony. I expect the President’s team to use video tape testimony as well.

    After hearing both sides and answering the Senator’s questions, then the Senate can vote to call further witnesses, if they think it necessary. It all depends on how credible the case is and whether there is any doubt about guilt or innocence.

  9. FB:

    No, the impeachment trial is not analogous to a jury trial in the least. Nor does it follow any of the ordinary rules involved in a regular trial.

    The senators are not impartial jurors with no interest in the outcome.They are not random citizens chosen from a jury pool. The Chief Justice (Roberts) isn’t there in the capacity of the usual judge. No witnesses need be called, because that is a matter to be decided by the senators themselves.

    If you’re interested in learning something about the way it works, see this as well as this.

  10. FB,

    So the House failed to provide belivabile witnesses,or any witnesses that high crimes occurred, but now want testimonies and witnesses the House (Democrats failed to provide) become viable in the Senate? What a sorry south end of a north bound horse you are.
    .

  11. Isn’t it interesting how far the impeachment mavens have been able to promote this exercise without presenting any verifiable facts that point to a crime? How can it be possible that this has progressed this far on the basis of unfounded assertions and repeated negative emphasis? Where are the incisive voices that are stripping away these embellishments and getting down to brass tacks?

    The first part is due to the team effort between Democrats and the media. The second is the abdication of duty and principle on the part of the Republicans, who are doing as little as possible while still keeping their base placated. As before, Trump is on his own.

  12. The senators are not impartial jurors with no interest in the outcome.

    Neither are the poll workers doing a hand recount in a contested election; and depending on the case before the court, neither are judges.

    At some point, as with Bush v Gore (2000), you have to accept that partisanship is to some degree ineradicable and will inevitably surface somewhere.

    In 2000, the outcome of the election was to be decided by either the partisanship of the poll workers and party bosses, who made ad hoc decisions about which dimpled chad was and was not a vote; or the partisanship of politically-appointed, ideologically motivated judges; who decided the case based on consistency with precedent. There wasn’t a non-partisan option. The entire process was political.

    There are no referees in this game. Everyone plays and they play to win.

  13. The House is supposed to investigate and make a case and then present their case to the Senate for judgment. Now the House wants to continue investigating by calling more witnesses and subpoenaing more documents. That’s not how it works and the Senate doesn’t look like they will go along with it. I’m waiting for the House to impeach the Senate for obstructing the democrats. Maybe it’s just me, but does Schiff look like a pathological liar?

  14. There wasn’t a non-partisan option. The entire process was political.

    Rubbish. The appellate judges in Florida repeatedly interfered with the efforts of trial judges to supervise an impersonal process.

  15. Mentus:

    Of course, no one is completely impartial, even on a jury, and even a judge. But if they have a direct interest in the outcome or strong relationship with plaintiff or defendant they must be excused from jury duty or recuse themselves from judging that case. Their bias is a question of degree.

    Senators have a direct and obvious interest and affiliation as elected members of Congress from a party, and allies or opponents of the president being impeached. They would never qualify for jury duty. But impeachment is set up in a completely different way from a regular trial, with difference rules and under a different system, and so they are able to act as senators voting on whether a high-ranking public official should be removed from office. That is what they are, and there is no analogy to a jury.

  16. parker on January 22, 2020 at 10:37 pm said:
    FB,

    What a sorry south end of a north bound horse you are.

    Look, we discuss a case or subject each one has his say.

    But jumping to insulting others, is just sing of loosers…
    Next time behave yourself well when you discussing with other people especially here

  17. “I can only imagine that this is what it would be like in to be tried in the USSR.” – JJ

    Some of the commenters here & elsewhere have remarked that they don’t have to imagine it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>